These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12516176)

  • 1. The EPICC quest for prescription contraceptive insurance coverage.
    Vargas C
    Am J Law Med; 2002; 28(4):455-71. PubMed ID: 12516176
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Prescription contraceptives: benefit whose time has come?
    Friedman MJ
    Manag Care; 2001 Oct; 10(10):62-3. PubMed ID: 11688113
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Insurance: exclusion of contraception found discriminatory by EEOC.
    Netter W
    J Law Med Ethics; 2001; 29(1):104-6. PubMed ID: 11521259
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A battle over birth "control": legal and legislative employer prescription contraception benefit mandates.
    Loomis CK
    William Mary Bill Rights J; 2002 Dec; 11(1):463-94. PubMed ID: 16389684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Catholic Charities v. Superior Court.
    California. Court of Appeal, Third District
    Wests Calif Report; 2001; 109():176-206. PubMed ID: 16479701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Lack of insurance coverage for prescription contraception by an otherwise comprehensive plan as a violation of Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act--stretching the statute too far.
    Backmeyer ER
    Indiana Law Rev; 2004; 37(2):437-66. PubMed ID: 16211763
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Catholic Charities of Sacramento County v. Superior Court of Sacramento County.
    California. Supreme Court
    Wests Pac Report; 2004; 85():67-108. PubMed ID: 17225342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Sex discrimination or a hard pill for employers to swallow: examining the denial of contraceptive benefits in the wake of Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co.
    Korland L
    Case West Reserve Law Rev; 2002; 53(2):531-67. PubMed ID: 16506335
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Employment law--Title VII--Eighth Circuit holds that benefits plans excluding all contraceptives do not discriminate based on sex.--In re Union Pacific Railroad Employment Practices Litigation, 479 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2007), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied, No. 06-1706 (8th Cir. May 23, 2007).
    Harv Law Rev; 2008 Mar; 121(5):1447-54. PubMed ID: 18441613
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. In good conscience: the legal trend to include prescription contraceptives in employer insurance plans and Catholic charities' "conscience clause" objection.
    Spota K
    Cathol Univers Law Rev; 2003; 52(4):1081-113. PubMed ID: 15732206
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Drafting a "sensible" conscience clause: a proposal for meaningful conscience protections for religious employers objecting to the mandated coverage of prescription contraceptives.
    Rudary DJ
    Health Matrix Clevel; 2013; 23(1):353-94. PubMed ID: 23808105
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Finance issue brief: women's health: contraceptive coverage.
    Plaza CI
    Issue Brief Health Policy Track Serv; 2000 Jul; ():1-6. PubMed ID: 11073429
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An EPICC oversight: why the current battle for access to contraception will not help reduce unintended pregnancy in the U.S.
    Kuhn CG
    Health Matrix Clevel; 2007; 17(2):347-75. PubMed ID: 18326396
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Finance, pharmaceuticals issue brief: mandated benefits: contraceptive coverage requirements: year end report-2003.
    Plaza CI
    Issue Brief Health Policy Track Serv; 2003 Dec; ():1-7. PubMed ID: 14870751
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Contraceptive coverage laws: eliminating gender discrimination or infringing on religious liberties?
    Chettiar IM
    Univ Chic Law Rev; 2002; 69(4):1867-99. PubMed ID: 15164744
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Finance, pharmaceuticals issue brief: women's health: contraceptive coverage requirements: year end report-2002.
    Plaza CI
    Issue Brief Health Policy Track Serv; 2002 Dec; ():1-8. PubMed ID: 12889494
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Access to Diabetes Prescription Drug Coverage.
    Cauchi R; Robinson S
    NCSL Legisbrief; 2016 Sep; 24(34):1-2. PubMed ID: 27911077
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act: encouraging health care reform.
    Grayson M
    Spectrum; 1997; 70(4):5-9. PubMed ID: 10177019
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act: employer health insurance plans must cover prescription contraceptives.
    Kurtz JM; Mehoves C
    Empl Benefits J; 2001 Sep; 26(3):29-31. PubMed ID: 11534218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Access to health insurance.
    Thomson-West Editorial Staff
    Issue Brief Health Policy Track Serv; 2007 Jan; ():1-45. PubMed ID: 17361477
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.